R v Lott - [2004] NSWSC 373

CITATION: R v Lott [2004] NSWSC 373

HEARING DATE(S): 30/04/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: In respect of the second count in the indictment (possession of firearm) the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months. The sentence is suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act on condition that the offender enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for the period of the suspended sentence. In respect of the third count in the indictment (possession of ammunition), the offender is fined a sum of $1,500 which is to be paid within 28 days from today. In respect of the fourth count in the indictment (possession of handcuffs) the charge is dismissed under s 10 of the Act. In respect of the fifth count in the indictment (possession of silencer) and taking into account the offence on the form 1 the offender is to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months. The firearms, weapons and ammunition are to be forfeited to the Crown for destruction.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentence after pleading guilty before the jury - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - Table 2 of the Schedule
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 10, 12

CASES CITED: R v Cromarty [2004] NSWCA 54
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

PARTIES :
Regina v Warwick John Lott

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70205/03

COUNSEL: R. Herps - Crown
P. Marr - Accused

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Armstrongs Solicitors - Accused

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 30 APRIL 2004

70205/03 REGINA v WARWICK JOHN LOTT
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 16 February, the offender, Warwick John Lott, was arraigned on an indictment containing five counts. The most serious of the offences contained in those allegations was one that he had, between January 2000 and September 2001, knowingly taken part in the supply of a quantity of methylamphetamine that was not less than the large commercial quantity for that drug. The applicant pleaded not guilty to that matter on arraignment and was ultimately put to his trial before a jury. He was acquitted of that offence.

2 He had, however, on his arraignment before the jury, pleaded guilty to the other four counts on the indictment, and he now comes to be sentenced in respect of those matters.

3 The first count for which the applicant has to be sentenced is one that on 24 September 2001, at Wallsend, he possessed a firearm, namely a single-barrel shotgun without being authorised to do so by licence or permit. That is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years. It is a matter that could be dealt with by a magistrate under Table 2 of the Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Act. If it had been dealt with in the Local…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Lott

Details

AGLC: R v Lott [2004] NSWSC 373
Case: [2004] NSWSC 373
Decision Date: 30 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lott was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Lott was charged with multiple counts of burglary and theft. After the prosecution presented its case, Lott pleaded guilty to the charges before the jury was sworn in. The matter proceeded to sentencing. The primary legal issue was whether the court could impose a sentence after Lott had pleaded guilty before the jury had been empanelled.

The court considered whether the plea of guilty was valid and whether it could proceed with sentencing. It was determined that Lott's plea was indeed valid and that the court had the authority to impose a sentence. The court acknowledged that there was no question of principle involved, as Lott had unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charges.

In light of the guilty plea, the court proceeded to sentence Lott to a term of imprisonment and a fine. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and Lott's criminal history. The court found that the plea of guilty and the subsequent sentence were appropriate in the circumstances. The judgment confirmed that a valid plea of guilty, even before the jury was sworn in, allowed the court to impose a sentence. The court did not make any further orders in the matter.

Orders